It's a two-person race. It's zero-sum. To materially oppose one candidate is to materially support the other. That is, i assume, why Trump's campaign keeps claiming they coordinate directly with Assange through an intermediary.
Can someone (calmly) explain why anyone should take seriously the idea that Assange can singlehandedly run virtually the entire opposition research campaign against Hillary Clinton and not be supporting Trump?
If I want to be internally consistent as a supporter of truth/justice/liberty/all those tasty things, I MUST NOT hesitate to release damaging information along those lines for the sake of a "lesser of two evils" justification. Your statement of zero-sum two person race is also a principle I believe one must sacrifice a "lesser of two evils" discussion to rally against, I believe that accepting we are in a two person race is part and parcel with the level of polarization/group-think we're seeing nowadays. The first steps to a better world in my eyes are to question EVERYTHING and become as vehemently anti-tribal as possible, and that means not withholding things that my moral code would demand I act on, even if it might harm the horse I'm rooting for. (quite to the opposite actually, if I saw that my main candidate had flaws and wasn't getting called out on them, I would see it as my obligation to do so even MORE so, since to whitewash in that direction to my eyes weakens what would otherwise be a valid stance. e.g., all things have negatives, even perhaps a positive choice, but to ignore them is duplicitous.)
tl;dr, my goals in this are not "this election" or "this candidate"; it's "getting people to question more"; "getting people to realize it doesn't NEED to be a zero-sum game". One may say this is idealistic/drop in the ocean etc; but I cannot reconcile with my personal philosophy giving up, because if I did, then there is no justification for ANYONE ELSE to push for these "impossible" goals, and thus the status quo/tragedy of the commons continues.
The problem is that what Wikileaks is doing is much worse than that.
No, not buying it.
https://www.rt.com/usa/361459-secretary-clinton-drone-assang...
She explicitly asked to have Assange assassinated -> people laughed -> until they realised she was serious because she offers arguments why it would be better to kill him.
My 2 cents: Assange is anti establishment and that's why he helps Trump.
It was on 23rd Nov 2010.
It's not nothing, but it's pretty damn close.
Perhaps the idea is that they might get off easier if Trump feels Wikileaks gave him an election present, but I find that to be a high risk gamble, especially at this point. That said, the argument could perhaps just as easily be made if they leaked a bunch of Trump stuff too.
I don't think anyone can really determine motives at this point with the current base of information.
He thinks Trump will severely harm America, and he really hates America.
We all wanted Bernie, but he sold out :-(
In a two horse race, throwing stones in front of one horse has an obvious and calculated effect.
There was a time when I believed in Wikileaks.
But collusion, orchestrated or not, with Putin and Trump crosses a clear line.
When you sell your services or align your actions with fascists, you are not longer serving the public interest, merely your own.
Let's not equivocate. Trump is an opportunistic fascist, apparently with aspirations to become America's analog to Putin the authoritarian fascist thug.
The cynic in me wonders what Putin has on Assange.